HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Poll on gun control metho...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:41 PM

Poll on gun control methods

Please select your preferred prospective laws for achieving the desired control over gun violence.

If I've missed your concept, let me know and I'll add you preference.
27 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
No new laws. The current laws are fine.
10 (37%)
No new laws but better reporting of those with mental and drug issues.
2 (7%)
No new laws but better reporting of those with mental and drug issues and crimes involving gang activity.
12 (44%)
Ban all handguns.
0 (0%)
Ban all handguns and mag fed rifles.
1 (4%)
Ban all firearms.
2 (7%)
Ban pistol mags > 10.
0 (0%)
Ban pistol and rifle mags > 10.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

30 replies, 2997 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Poll on gun control methods (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 OP
rrneck Aug 2012 #1
Tuesday Afternoon Aug 2012 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #4
wolfman24 Aug 2012 #5
glacierbay Aug 2012 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #8
GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #9
rl6214 Aug 2012 #10
DanTex Aug 2012 #11
gejohnston Aug 2012 #12
DanTex Aug 2012 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #22
Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #7
MH1 Sep 2012 #15
MH1 Sep 2012 #14
trouble.smith Sep 2012 #16
MH1 Sep 2012 #19
trouble.smith Sep 2012 #20
MH1 Sep 2012 #23
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #17
MH1 Sep 2012 #18
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #21
MH1 Sep 2012 #24
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #25
rDigital Sep 2012 #28
gopiscrap Sep 2012 #26
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #27
rDigital Sep 2012 #29
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #30

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:43 PM

1. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:50 PM

2. in my mind, gang activities go hand in hand with drugs and mental health issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 04:46 PM

3. For "...better reporting of mental and drug issues and crimes involving gang activity"

What changes are needed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 05:06 PM

4. For "Ban all firearms."

Would this be a total ban on ownership retroactive for any firearms regardless of how or when they were acquired?
Would this be a ban on future sales only?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:54 AM

5. Not enough

 


Hello

Think about it. Banning guns is a bandaide in a hurricane. Outlaw the production, sale, importation and smuggling of guns. Make it a capital offense to own specific types of guns, import them, manufacture them, sell them or even aide in the importation. There are just too many guns out there in the world.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfman24 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:39 AM

6. And yet, violent crime, including gun crimes,

 

continues to fall while firearms ownership continues to rise.
Can you explain that?
The smuggling of guns is already outlawed. . how do you stop it? We can't even stop illegal immigration, stop the smuggling of drugs.
Also there is the matter of the second amendment, how are you going to get around that? How about the 280-300 millions of firearms already out there? Are you going to be part of the confiscation team? Or are you going to let someone else do your dirty work?
Do you really want a Repuke govt. for the forseeable future?

Did you even think this through?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfman24 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:49 PM

8. Apparently......there are...




...in your world.




You seem to be in a world of your own.



BTW: welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfman24 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 03:12 PM

9. So you want the death penalty for having a gun? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfman24 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:41 PM

10. One of the most extreme opinions I've seen here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfman24 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:05 PM

11. I told you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:27 PM

12. making possession a capital offense isn't extreme?

Since when was supporting the death penalty progressive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:29 PM

13. Of course it's extreme. Who said the death penalty is progressive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:11 PM

22. re: "Who said the death penalty is progressive?"

I do for one and there are others here who agree. Why do you like the DP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:51 PM

7. Universal, opt-out licensing.

 

My choice would be Universal, opt-out licensing, whereby everyone who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID would be automatically run through NICS and given a Firearms Owner ID license, unless they opted out. This would provide universal licensing of all law-abiding firearm owners while preserving firearm ownership anonymity.

Then I would require the recording of the FOID information for all sales, private and commercial, for a period of 3 years after the sale.

Then I would allow mail-order purchases of firearms to anyone with an FOID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 09:33 AM

15. Interesting option, but way too efficient to ever be adopted.

when you make things too efficient and simple, there are no opportunities for entrepreneurs to make money helping people navigate the red tape. And we can't have THAT. Silly you! (kidding, but only half.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 09:30 AM

14. Allow large cities to set their own gun laws.

I don't care what the laws are, but I think people should have the right to determine the laws for their city, and not be dictated to by the rural rest of the state, which has a completely different dynamic with regard to guns. Likewise, I don't think a populous enough city should get to dictate the gun laws of rural areas. If someone wants to carry a gun into a big city, they should know to check the laws first and make sure they are in compliance. If they don't like the laws and don't want to comply, don't come, or leave the gun behind.

My example for this is Philadelphia vs. Pennsylvania. To those who would argue that tighter gun control won't do anything to lower violence in the city, you may be correct (or not, I don't know) but that is not the point. People should get to determine their own laws, not be dictated to by others who have no experience at all with their situation. Let the city try the laws the people agree to, and when/if it doesn't lower violence, and people want to loosen the laws again, they can. (I have a similar philosophy with regard to drug and alcohol laws, too, btw. If a town is dry and I don't want to be there, I just don't go. Somewhere else gets my business. If the feds would stop being assholes about mj laws I would move to a more reasonable state. Of course, with global warming, Alaska will be a habitable place to live soon enough.)

Of course, any law the city adopts should still respect the right of law-abiding citizens to have and use guns for legitimate purposes.

(I'm not a regular gungeon poster, and may or may not return to this thread. Fire away! )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 09:45 AM

16. can cities enact their own abortion laws too?

 

how about equal rights laws? Immigration laws? Marriage laws? We have a constitution for a reason? Try to change it if you don't agree with it but don't think you'll just casually disregard it without major consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:23 AM

19. "Casually disregard" - What the hell are you talking about?

That's a pretty insulting response.

This is why most of DU avoids bothering to post a reasoned reply in this forum.

To your actual discussion points, the U.S. Constitution sets out broad rights. However, there are limits on those rights imposed EVERY DAY, and those limits have been found constitutional over time. "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" - you never heard of that?

And states DO impose there own abortion laws - which as a general statement I don't have a problem with, even though I am extremely pro-choice. I don't believe for example, that an unlicensed practitioner should be giving a woman an abortion in a back alley. You make it sound like having a law about that would somehow be in violation of the Constitution? Huh?

Last I checked, "marriage" wasn't a constitutionally granted right, although I could be mistaken - I confess I don't have the Constitution memorized, but I do recall that states make their own laws about it. And for all I know, cities do as well. Didn't Gavin Newsome try it in SF? Did you have a problem with that?

And, what "major consequences" are you referring to? A lawsuit to the Supreme Court testing constitutionality? That is exactly what courts are for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:52 AM

20. I think you become insulted too easily

 

and, furthermore, you are the one escalating the rhetorical tone here in this especially polarized forum; thereby, making polite and reasoned discourse difficult. Having said that, it seems that you believe that cities should be allowed to circumvent both state, federal, and constitutional law by issuing their own "executive orders" regarding the RKBA. I believe that is, aside from being illegal, a dangerous precedent and a recipe for anarchy. Nothing worth getting too worked up about there that I can see. Now if you'll excuse me, it's chinese buffet time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:17 PM

23. Wow, you're the one throwing around "casual disregard". What was "escalating the rhetorical tone" in

first post, that you replied to with that broad-brush assertion?

I never once said ANYTHING about ANYONE issuing "executive orders".

You are not aware that cities have their own governing bodies and make laws about a whole host of issues? Really?

Here's a starting point:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=city+government+structure&oq=city+govern&gs_l=hp.1.2.0l4.1126.11482.0.14712.28.14.8.6.8.0.95.979.14.14.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.EULKcrVZp6s&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=bb0f12ad238bc1f7&biw=1440&bih=741

And since I mentioned Philadelphia, because that is a city where this issue is perennially raised:
http://64.78.7.226/OurViews_How_Council_Works.aspx

There's also this handy summary:

Public Safety

Local governments are also responsible for the majority of public safety agencies and provisions. Those include institutions like fire departments, police departments and an ambulance service. In cases of emergency, federal and state personnel may be dispatched to help local public safety institutions. Local governments are responsible for staffing, as well as funding, those groups, though higher levels of government typically contribute grants and other support. Also, local governments must determine and enforce safety codes, including building codes and other ordinances.


Read more: Responsibilities of Local Government | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6068028_responsibilities-local-government.html#ixzz25QM4exeD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:04 AM

17. Do cities get to put their own spin on 1st Amendment rights, too?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:14 AM

18. Philadelphia just started enforcing a rule against tacking signs on utility poles.

Should I be expecting a First Amendment case to be making its way to the Supreme Court?

I suppose you are A-OK with Citizens United decision, then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:05 PM

21. Well, thanks for joining us...

... and welcome. It's always great to have a fresh opinion.

Being a Philadelphia native, myself, and also having traveled extensively in the state, I realize that there are exceptional differences between say downtown Philly and the outskirts of Mile Run. I personally believe that the laws ought to be rather uniform like the traffic laws but I'll listen to what you have to say about exceptions/differences for both ends.

So what did you have in mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:29 PM

24. Just let the residents of Philadelphia decide.

For one example, straw purchases are a huge issue. People who live in and pay attention to how things happen in Philly and what laws might have an effect, should be able to vote on more stringent purchasing controls, for example. Maybe. I actually don't live in Philly, just the burbs, but hear about this on the news. I'm not enough of a gun law follower to know what might work. But the people who are right there in the middle of it should have the right to try. After all it is their tax dollars, police and fire departments that have to clean up the mess.

I don't really care about a homeowner wanting to have a gun or two for protection or sport. I care about the right of people to try to address the issues they see on their own streets. Almost no one involved in the city-vs-rural discussion, is talking about shutting down gun ownership completely. There is a problem and people are looking for solutions. They should not have their hands tied - within the recognition that there is a level of gun rights protected by the Constitution. There is a line somewhere between allowing people to own all the nukes they want and buy them and play with them anywhere, vs no one but law enforcement having anything remotely resembling a firearm. Mostly we disagree on the line. No one in the city/rural discussion is taking the latter position. If they do, no one will listen to them anyway, because it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge and no one wants to waste their time, if they really care about actually solving the problem.

Anyway, I mostly just felt that option was missing from the poll, so I thought I'd throw it in there. It's probably not worth much more of my time here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:58 PM

25. Straw purchases...

...should be addressed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what a reasonable measure to do so would be. In the urban v rural situation, if all that was required to circumvent the law was driving over the city line to one of the suburbs, legal measures enforced within the city will only be a partial solution.

I am okay with having certain municipal level measures required of FFLs within the city. I am okay with requiring private sales to include an NICS check either at the city level or even the whole state.

You've got something to contribute here. It's good to hear from you.
Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:26 PM

28. Strict local gun laws are working wonders in Chicago. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:05 PM

26. I get a ton of flak for this but...

I voted ban all firearms...if you own any type of gun that is the beginning of entering the slippery slope toward republicanism!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:14 PM

27. Sorry to hear that....

...but there are plenty of gun-owning Dems. Why to do you equate gun ownership with Republicanism? That really does sound like an NRA backed idea.

BTW, welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:31 PM

29. Ileus, LOL. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:33 PM

30. he's...

...a funny guy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread